'Diversity' to hit Wall Street

There are precious few areas in American life where sheer ability, daring, smarts, and luck are celebrated and rewarded as on Wall Street. While there's no doubt an Ivy League business degree helps, there are many examples where entry level go getters worked their way to the top of the heap because of their unique abilities and hard work.

A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities - an effort at promoting diversity that's drawing fire from Republicans who say it could lead to de facto hiring quotas.Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the "fair inclusion" of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.Employment law experts say the language goes further than any previous attempt by the U.S. government to promote diversity in the financial sector - putting muscle behind federal efforts to help minority- and women-owned firms gain access to billions in federal contracts.

For advocates of the measure, it is a past-due shove to an elite industry that is heavily male and white - one in which Government Accountability Office studies show women and minorities have made only minimal gains in the past 15 years.

But to opponents, the provision signifies a brazen government intrusion into corporate practices, with language written so vaguely that some believe it could lead to an unofficial quota system.

Of course it can lead to quotas. A rule of thumb in affirmative action is that if there is a possibility that hard quotas can be construed from the legislation, they will be. It will be the only way for companies to protect themselves. The EEOC will issue "targets" for percentages of minorities and rather than fight the system - at the risk of losing - companies will simply go along. The government knows this which is why they promulgate the rules in the first place.

And when the affirmative action hires either don't work out, or don't advance quickly enough, an avalanche of discrimination suits will occur anyway. This is the affirmative action game that no one is supposed to criticize because if you do, you're a racist. And the only ones who benefit are trial lawyers and the grievance mongers in the victimhood industry who can present these "gains" to the public for fundraising purposes.

Equal opportunity? Justice? Nice try.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

There are precious few areas in American life where sheer ability, daring, smarts, and luck are celebrated and rewarded as on Wall Street. While there's no doubt an Ivy League business degree helps, there are many examples where entry level go getters worked their way to the top of the heap because of their unique abilities and hard work.

A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities - an effort at promoting diversity that's drawing fire from Republicans who say it could lead to de facto hiring quotas.

Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the "fair inclusion" of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.

Employment law experts say the language goes further than any previous attempt by the U.S. government to promote diversity in the financial sector - putting muscle behind federal efforts to help minority- and women-owned firms gain access to billions in federal contracts.

For advocates of the measure, it is a past-due shove to an elite industry that is heavily male and white - one in which Government Accountability Office studies show women and minorities have made only minimal gains in the past 15 years.

But to opponents, the provision signifies a brazen government intrusion into corporate practices, with language written so vaguely that some believe it could lead to an unofficial quota system.

Of course it can lead to quotas. A rule of thumb in affirmative action is that if there is a possibility that hard quotas can be construed from the legislation, they will be. It will be the only way for companies to protect themselves. The EEOC will issue "targets" for percentages of minorities and rather than fight the system - at the risk of losing - companies will simply go along. The government knows this which is why they promulgate the rules in the first place.

And when the affirmative action hires either don't work out, or don't advance quickly enough, an avalanche of discrimination suits will occur anyway. This is the affirmative action game that no one is supposed to criticize because if you do, you're a racist. And the only ones who benefit are trial lawyers and the grievance mongers in the victimhood industry who can present these "gains" to the public for fundraising purposes.